Segall-Maigen, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 14, 1936

1 N.L.R.B. 749 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In, the Matter of SEGALL-MAIGEN, INC., A CORPORATION' and INTER-
NATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL No. 50
Case No. C-35.-Decided May 14, 1936
Ladies Wearing Apparel Industries-Strike-Discrimination .: non-reinstate-
ment following strike-Reinstatement Ordered, Strikers : discrimination in rein-
statement ; displacement of employees hired during strike ; preferential list
ordered, including-Back Pay: awarded-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bar-
gaining: production employees.
Mr. Gerhard P. Van Arkel for the Board.
Mr. Martin G. Stein, of Philadelphia , Pa., for respondent.
Mr. M. Herbert Syme, of Philadelphia , Pa., for the Union.
Mr. Samuel G. Zack, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
On December 9, 1935, the International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, Local No. 50, hereinafter referred to as the Union, filed
with the Regional Director for the Fourth Region a charge that
Segall-Maigen, Inc., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, had engaged in
unfair labor practices prohibited by the National Labor Relations
Act, approved July 5, 1935, hereinafter referred to as the Act. On
December 31, 1935, the Board issued a complaint against Segall-
Maigen, Inc., hereinafter referred to as respondent, the complaint
being signed by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region and
alleging that respondent had committed unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1),
(3) and (5), and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7), of the Act.
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance :
1. That the employees of respondent engaged in production, ex-
cept those employed in a supervisory capacity, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining , within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act;
2. That on or about October 9, 1935, a majority of the employees
in said unit had designated the Union as their representative for
purposes of collective bargaining with respondent, such designa-
tion having been made by accepting membership in and paying dues
749
750 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the Union; that, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union
has since that time been the exclusive representative of all employees
in said unit for purposes of collective bargaining; that on or about
October 9, 1935, the Union requested respondent, through its of-
ficers, agents and employees, to bargain collectively in respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of
employment; that on said'date and at all times thereafter, respondent
refused and has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive-representative of all the employees in said unit.
3. That respondent on or, about October 9, 1935, terminated the
employment of, and at all times since that date has refused to rein-
state, 14 of its employees; namely, Ethel Betteridge, Rita Biscardi,
Julia Cappuccio, Rose Cohen, Elvira Cuarato, Mildred Cuarato,
Laura Freeman, Sarah Harvitz, Helen Janson, Virginia Paoloni,
Angelina Petronella, Rose Rosen, Hazel Ruben and Sara Weiss, for
the reason` that they joined and assisted a labor organization and
engaged in concerted activities with other employees of respondent
for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and
protection, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (3) of the Act.
4. That the unfair labor practices, of the respondent have led and
tend to lead to labor disputes affecting commerce as defined by the
Act.
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were 'duly
served in accordance with Article V of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1. Respondent filed its answer
to the complaint, denying that it was engaged in interstate commerce
within the meaning of the Act, and denying the' jurisdiction of the
Board; denying that it terminated the employment of the employees
named in the complaint, and alleging that they left voluntarily and
without cause and refused to return to work within a reasonable time
thereafter; denying that it has discriminated against, or interfered
with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; and admitting its failure to bar-
gain collectively with the Union, but alleging that the Union did not
represent a majority of respondent's employees.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania, on January 15 and 16, 1936, before Benedict Wolf, Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues, was afforded to all parties. At the
close of the testimony for the Board respondent moved to dismiss
the complaint. The motion was denied by the Trial Examiner. The
ruling of the Trial Examiner is hereby affirmed.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 751
On January 14, 1936, the Board, acting pursuant to Article II,
Section 35, of said Rules and Regulations-Series 1, directed that
the proceedings be transferred to and continued before it. Upon
'due-notice, the Board held a further hearing on February 28, 1936,
at Washington, D. C., at which time and place further evidence was
taken.
Upon the record in the case, the stenographic report of the hearings
and all the evidence, including oral testimony, documentary and other
evidence offered and received at the hearings, the Board makes the
following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE LADIES' NECKWEAR INDUSTRY
In December, 1934, there were 120 factories engaged in the manu-
facture of ladies' neckwear, four of which were located in Phila-
delphia. At that time, there were about 4,000 workers employed in
the industry.
Silks, satins, cottons and woolens are the principal raw materials
used by the industry in the manufacture of its finished product.
These materials are purchased either from converters, most of whom
are located in New York City, or directly from manufacturers, most
of whom are located in and around Paterson, New Jersey. The out-
put of the industry is sold principally to chain stores, mail-order
houses and large department and retail stores.
In the New York area, labor costs represent about one-third of the
entire cost of the finished product. Competition in the industry is
very keen. Manufacturers in areas where labor is unorganized and
where the rates of pay are low and the hours of employment long,
have been successful in diverting business from manufacturers in
areas where labor is organized and where higher standards of wages
and hours are maintained.
II. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Segall -Maigen, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the
production , sale and distribution of ladies ' neckwear . Respondent has
its factory and principal office in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania.
Cotton goods , rayon, laces and silks are the principal raw materials'
used by respondent in the manufacture of its finished product. About
75% or 80% of these raw materials are purchased by respondent in
New York City, and are shipped to Philadelphia , either by express
or motor truck.
Respondent has a show room and sales office in New York City,
where it employs two salesmen . Orders are placed at the New York
752 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
office and are either carried or mailed to the main office at Philadel-
phia. Orders are also solicited by personal contact or by mail. Mr.
Segall, president of respondent, whose office is in Philadelphia, testi-
fied that he goes to New York every day in the week, and that he
travels to Baltimore, Maryland, Washington, D. C., and to other
points as business might require.
Respondent manufactures about 907/0 or 950% of its total product
on specific orders. Respondent sells mainly to retailers and a few
,jobbers. It also sells to mail-order houses, some of whom issue cata-
logues wherein reference is made to respondent's line of goods.
Of its finished products, respondent ships 75 jo by parcel post, and
the remainder either by motor truck or express. Mr. Segall was
unable to state what percentage of its goods respondent ships in
interstate commerce. He did testify, however, that respondent ships
goods "all over the country, that covers the entire United States."
"Sometimes we might ship, goods in the South. . ." "Some-
times we may ship goods to the Coast." He also testified that on a
year round basis, respondent's product is evenly distributed among
the various sections of the country.
The aforesaid operations of respondent constitute a continuous
flow of trade, traffic and commerce among the several States.
III. THE RESPONDENT AND THE UNION
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local No. 50, is
a labor organization which is composed, among others, of workers in
the ladies ' neckwear industry in Philadelphia. Morris Fishman,
business agent of the Dressmakers' Joint Board of the International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, was, at the time the events in this
case took place, the Union official assigned to organizing the ladies'
neckwear workers in Philadelphia.
In July, 1935, the wages of all of respondent's employees engaged
in production, except the cutters, were reduced by $2 a week with
the understanding that when business picked up in September, 1935,
the amount of the reduction would be restored. In September, some
of the girls had the amount of their reductions partially or totally
restored, but, others did not.
Before September, 1935, respondent's employees worked eight
hours a day, five days a week, and were paid for overtime. On Fri-
day, September 13, the forelady told the employees that they would
have to work a half day on the next day,-Saturday, the 14; when
asked by the employees if they would get paid, she answered that
they would. The work week regularly began on Friday and ended
on Thursday, and the employees were paid on the following Satur-
day. When the employees received their wages on Saturday, Sep-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 753
tember 21, they found that they had not been paid for the overtime
they had worked on Saturday, the 14th. They spoke to Mr. Maigen,
secretary-treasurer of respondent, and he said that there would be
no pay for overtime because they were now working 45 hours a week
instead of 40 hours for the same weekly wage. When they at-
tempted to discuss the matter further, Mr. Segall, president of re-
spondent, called Maigen away.
On Monday morning, September 23, the employees came into the
factory but did not actually begin to work. The forclady reported
this to Segall, who came out and asked what the trouble was. He
was told by the girls that they wanted to know when they would all
get their pay cuts back and that they objected to the increase in
hours without any increase in pay. He told them that if they did
not like it, to get out. Fourteen girls thereupon walked out. They
went to the office of the International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, Local No. 50, and became members of the Union.
That afternoon Morris Fishman and Max Wexler, business agents
,of the Dressmakers' Joint Board of the International Ladies' Gar-
ment -Workers' Union, endeavored to arrange a conference with
respondent. Maigen told them that he would not assume respoirsii-
bility for a conference, but that he would get in touch with Segall who
was in New York at the time. At five o'clock the following day,
'Tuesday, September 24, Wexler tried to arrange a conference with
Segall in an effort to settle the strike and return the union employees
to work; but Segall refused to meet with him. Pickets were then
placed in front of respondent's factory.
The Union representatives continued their efforts to settle the
strike, but, receiving no encouragement or cooperation from respond-
ent, prevailed upon Mr. Erlichman, a dress manufacturer and an
intimate friend of Segall, to arrange for a meeting between the parties.
As a result of Erlichman's intercession, a meeting was held at Erlich-
man's office three or four days after the walkout. Those present were
Segall, Fishman, Erlichman and Wexler. At this conference Segall
was asked to reinstate the Union employees and to sign a Union
agreement. This was refused by Segall with the statement that lie
would not negotiate further until the rest of the industry in Philadel-
phia wits organized.
There were five or six subsequent meetings between the Union and
respondent. At these meetings the Union abandoned its efforts to
procure the signing of a Union agreement, but bent all of its efforts
toward the reinstatement of the Union employees. The requests for
reinstatement were met with refusals on the part of officials of re-
spondent, who stated that the girls would not be reinstated if they
came sponsored by the Union. Mr. Segall testified that "if these girls
would come in one by one, we wouldn't have turned them down."
754 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES -
A. Refusal to reinstate
The walkout by the 14 girls was the result of their dissatisfaction
with the increase of working hours from 40 to 45 hours a week and
the failure of respondent to restore to all of its employees the pay
cuts which had been put into effect in July, 1935, and which the
respondent had promised to restore. Because of this dissatisfaction
and because of their inability to exert sufficient pressure individually
to bring about a change as to those matters, the employees, who up to
the time of the walkout were not members of the Union, joined the
Union in an endeavor to exert concerted pressure on respondent.
The first effort on the part of the Union to effect the reinstatement
of the 14 girls who had walked out was made on September 24, 1935.
Twenty girls were employed subsequent to this date and prior to the
hearing before the Trial Examiner. Two of these girls had had pre-
vious employment with respondent for two or three weeks, and one
had worked for a longer period but had less seniority than any of the
Union employees. The other 17 had either not worked for respondent
before, or had been engaged for the first time immediately after the
strike, had had their employment terminated, and had then been
rehired after September 24. At the hearing Mr. Segall admitted that
the reason the Union employees were not'reinstated after their re`
peated requests to be allowed to return to work was because "we have
taken on other girls who are now working in the places of those
walking out."
Respondent makes no claim that the Union employees were ineffi-
cient. o Segall testified that they were capable and "good workers."
That fact, plus their long service of employment and experience,
would, all things being equal, have prompted respondent to reinstate
the 14 girls when they requested reinstatement. Respondent was in
fact compelled to discharge a number of the new employees because
of inefficiency. Thus, there was every reason why respondent should
have preferred employees who were experienced and efficient. On all
the evidence, it is clear that respondent refused to reinstate the 14
girls because they had joined the Union, had picketed respondent's
factory, and had designated the Union to act for them.
We find that by refusing to reinstate the Union employees after
their repeated requests for reinstatement and when jobs for them
were available , and by filling such jobs with new employees or em-
ployees with less seniority, respondent has interfered with, restrained
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, and has discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in a
labor organization. .
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 755
B. Collective bargaining
1. The bargaining unit
The production employees at respondent's factory, excepting cut-
ters and those engaged in a clerical or supervisory capacity, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
2. Majority representation by the union
The Act provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an
employer to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of
his employees. Section 9 (a) provides that representatives designated
or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate unit
shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit.
The Union contended that there were 27 production employees in
the factory, and since there were 14 Union employees, the Union was
the exclusive representative of the production employees for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining. Respondent offered testimony that it
employed between 50 and 60 production workers.
Although we have found that the production employees of respond-
ent, exclusive of the cutters, are a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining, we cannot find that a majority of the em-
ployees in such unit did select or designate the Union as their repre-
sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining. Taking the
payroll of respondent for the period commencing with the week of
January 18, 1935, and counting only those who have an appreciable
length of service, we find that there were 35 employees regularly
engaged as production employees, exclusive of the cutters and of the
clerical and supervisory staffs. Since only 14 girls joined the Union,
the Union has not been designated by a majority of the employees
in the appropriate unit.
The allegation in the complaint that respondent refused to bargain
collectively in violation of Section 8, subdivision (5) of the Act, will
therefore be dismissed.
V. EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
Prior to August, 1933, the ladies' neckwear industry found itself in
a chaotic condition. Wages had been cut to the point where operators
were earning between seven and eight dollars for a week of 44 to 48
hours. This situation had brought about a condition of cut-throat
competition, with the result that those employers who tried to main-
tain a decent standard of wages and hours were faced with bank-
ruptcy because of the fact that they were unable to meet the competi-
tion of less scrupulous employers. In an endeavor to meet this
situation, the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union con-
756 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ferred with the employers in the industry. As a result, an agreement
was entered into between the International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union and the National Women's Neckwear and Scarf Association,
Inc., which represented about 75 employers in the City of New York.
By this agreement, it was sought to eliminate the sweat shop condition
in the industry. Among other matters, the agreement provided for
arbitration of all matters which lead or tend to lead to labor disputes.
This agreement was renewed in October, 1934, and again in October,
1935, and is still in existence.
Since this agreement was entered into in 1933, there have been only
20 or 25 disagreements involving employers who are signatories to
the agreement, all of which, with one exception, have been adjusted
under the terms of the arbitration clause. In the case of the one
exception, 12 employees struck because the employer was attempting
to discharge a cutter who had complained that, contrary to the agree-
ment, he was not being paid time and one-half for overtime. The
employees struck only after the employer had refused to abide by the
ruling of the impartial labor board set up under the agreement.
In 1934 and in January to July, 1935, inclusive, interference with
self-organization of employees by employers in the wearing apparel
industries resulted in strikes and lockouts involving, 3703 workers
and 57,181 man-days of idleness.
Respondent's failure to reinstate the Union employees disrupted
respondent 's production schedule and affected its business of manu-
facturing and distributing ladies' neckwear in interstate commerce,
thus burdening and obstructing commerce and' the free flow of
commerce.
We find that the aforesaid acts of the respondent have led and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
Respondent's factory, as far as the production work was involved
and excepting the cutting department, was divided into the follow-
ing departments : operating, pressing, trimming and packing. When
work at respondent's factory reached the point where lay-offs be-
came necessary, respondent applied the seniority rule in effecting lay-
offs. Those with the least length of employment were the first to be
laid off, while those who were in respondent's employ for longer
periods of time were laid off last. The seniority rule was also used
in reemploying the workers; those with the longest service were
called back to work first.
On the basis of a tabulated list of all of respondent's production
employees, excepting the cutters, submitted by respondent, we find
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 757
that the 14 Union employees had the seniority rating indicated oppo-
site their respective names. For the purposes of this finding, it is
not necessary to tabulate the names of those employees with a lesser
seniority rating than that of Rose Cohen :
Seniority rating Employee In respondent'semploy
1- -------------------------------- Jackie Longo ---------------------------------- 19 months
21------------------------------- Mildred Cuarato______________________________ 18 months.
3--------------------------------- Helen De Bernardis___________________________ 18 months.
4---------------------------------- Sonia Berdit---------------------------------- 18 months.
5---------------------------------- Janet De Bernardis___________________________ 17 months.6 1-------------------------------- Sarah Harvitz______-°________________________ 17 months.
71------------------------------- Helen Janson_________________________________ 17 months.
$1-------------------------------- Sarah Weiss ----------------------------------- 17 months.
9---------------------------------- Margaret Zochi_______________________________ 17 months
10- ------------------------------- Teresa De Bernardis__________________________ 16 months.
I1'------------------------------- Vireinia Paolom______________________________ 16 months
12--------------------------------- Chickie Zochi_________________________________ 16 months.
13--------------------------------- Lucille Longo------------------------------- - 15 months.
14---------------------------------
Marie Murphy-------------------------------- 15 months.
5
16 ;
Edna Smith -----------------------------------
Angelina Petronella_ _ _ _
14 months.
13 months
17---------------------------------
_ _ _ ____________________
Tillie Sees -------------------------------------
.
11 months
18 ------------------- Esther Carvel to------------------- ___________ 10 months, 1 week.
19i------------------------------- Julia Capuccio________________________________ 10 months.
20--------------------------------- Chinzi Carivello______________________________ 10 months.
211------------------------------- Rose Rosen------------------------ ---------- 9 months
22--------------------------------- Sarah Varlet'---------------------------------- 8 months, 2 weeks.
23 1------------------------------- Elvira Cuarato___________________________ 8 months.
241------------------------------ Laura Freeman_______________________________ 8 months.
25--------------------------------- Janie Klasky--------------------------------- S, months.
261------------------- ----------- Rita Biscardi__________________________________ 7 months, 1 week.,
271 ------------------------------- Ethel Betteridge______________________________ 7 months.
281-------------------------------
Hazel Rubin ---------------------------------- 7 months.
29--------------------------------- Elizabeth Madway____________________________ 7 months.
30--------------------------------- Anna Perri ------------------------------------ 6 months.
31 -------------------------------- Lillian Korr----------------------------------- 6 months
32--------------------------------- Rose Letteriell o_______________________________ 5 months.
33'------------------------------- Rose Cohen----------------------------------- 18 weeks.
i Union employee
None of the 14 Union employees who have been discriminated
against has obtained any other employment. By virtue of Section 10,
subdivision (c) of the Act, the Board has authority to order respond-
ent to offer immediate reinstatement to these employees. The jobs of
these Union employees have been filled by employees engaged after
the request for reinstatement on September 24, 1935, or by employees
with less seniority as of September 23, 1935 when the strike began.
Since respondent has committed unfair labor practices in the. refusal
to reinstate these Union employees, and since such affirmative action
is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act, the Board will enter
an order requiring respondent to offer these employees immediate
reinstatement to their former positions.
Operators were not put into other departments to help out when
the operating department was slack. However, employees were con-
stantly transferred from one to another of the remaining three de-
partments. No great degree of specialized skill is required in these
three departments, and in any one week, an employee might work in
all three departments, depending on the work-load. Therefore, if
758 NATIO\AL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
necessary to comply with this order, respondent shall dismiss those
operators at present in its employ who have been engaged since Sep-
tember 24, 1935, or who, on September 23, 1935, had less seniority
than the operators among the 14 Union employees, and shall dismiss
those employees in the pressing. trimming and packing departments
at present in its employ who have been engaged since September 24,
1935, or who, on September 23, 1935, had less seniority than those of
the 14 Union employees who were employed in any of these three de-
partments on September 23, 1935. For the purpose of the order of
reinstatement herein contained, and of the calculation of seniority,
the pressing, trimming and packing departments shall be considered
as one department.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the Board makes
the following conclusions of law :
1. By its refusal to employ Ethel Betteridge , Rita Biscardi, Julia
Cappuccio, Rose Cohen , Elvira Cuarato , Mildred Cuarato, Laura
Freeman, Sarah Harvitz, Helen Janson, Virginia Paoloni, Angelina
Petronella , Rose Rosen, Hazel Rubin, Sara Weiss, in order to discour-
age membership in a labor organization , respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of
Section 8 , subdivision ( 3) of the Act.
2. By interfering with and restraining its employees in the exercise
of their rights to self-organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid and protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices , within the
meaning of Section 8, subdivision ( 1) of the Act.
3. Respondent 's production employees, excepting cutters and those
engaged in a clerical or supervisory capacity, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining , within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. The Union not leaving been designated as their representative
by a majority of respondent 's employees in an appropriate unit, is
not, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act , the exclusive representative
of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
5. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices , within the
meaning of Section 8 , subdivision ( 5) of the Act.
6. The unfair labor practices in which respondent has engaged and
is engaging are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 2 , subdivisions ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
ORDER
759
On the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
respondent, Segall-Maigen, Inc., and its officers and agents, shall :
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed' in Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Cease and desist frum discouraging membership in the Inter-
national Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, or any other labor organi-
zation of its employees, by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment.
3. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) To the extent that work for which the following are available
is now performed by persons engaged after September 24; 1935, or
by employees with less seniority as of September 23, 1935, offer em-
ployment to the following named persons on the basis of seniority as
set forth in this decision : Ethel Betteridge, Rita Biscardi, Julia Cap-
puccio, Rose Cohen, Elvira Cuarato, Mildred Cuarato, Laura Free-
man, Sarah Harvitz, Helen Janson, Virginia Paoloni, Angelina
Petronella, Rose Rosen, Hazel Rubin, and Sara Weiss; and place
those for whom employment is not available on a preferred list, pre-
pared on the basis of seniority as set forth in this decision, to be
offered employment as it arises;
(b) Make whole such of those persons named in paragraph (a)
above who receive employment, for any loss of pay they have suf-
fered by reason of respondent's refusal to reinstate them, by payment
to each of them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which
each would have earned had he been employed in lieu of the person
who has worked in his place since September 24,1935, less the amount
which each has earned during such period.
(c) Post immediately notices in conspicuous places in its factory
stating (1) that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner
aforesaid, and (2) that such notices will remain posted for a period
of at least thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of posting.
4. The allegations in the complaint that the respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8, subdivision (5) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, are dismissed.
97571-36-vol. i-49